It has occurred to me that I've inadvertently painted a misleading picture
of the current state of astrology, wherein I've emphasized all the things
that astrology lacks if it is ever to achieve general acceptance in modern
times. In painting that picture, I have, so I have come to think, made the
assumption that the potential positive versions thereof would be obvious to
the reader.

I can now see how that assumption is at the very least undependable, and is
most probably simply invalid; my growing suspicion is that the reader may
indeed draw the conclusion I basically hold no hope for astrology. Were
that true, I would never have appeared in this forum. So I'm going to take
some pains to paint another picture here, one that addresses what is
possible for the future of astrology, if the effort is made to make it so.

To begin with, I will look at what already exists, what is already
available, and what has already been done.. at least so far as I am
personally aware.

Material:

Astrology has a fairly rich traditional lore, the applications of which are
becoming more accessible through research. In general, there have been only
a few periods during which active practice and study did not take place
throughout the civilized world. So not only does a very long history of the
study exist, but it can be seen to encompass virtually every culture as
well. The result is a rather enormous mass of material that emanates
directly from the study of the heavens for the specific purpose of divining
the affairs, and the future, of mankind. This historical resource is very
poorly understood, however, and will require a good deal of effort to take
in hand; nevertheless, we do not suffer a dearth of recorded astrological
practice.

The central problem in addressing all this is the current definition of
astrology. In the main, it is assumed that 'legitimate' astrology is
limited to horoscopy, such that any material that is not relevant thereto is
not to be considered astrological in nature. Of course, the traditional
lore of horoscopy is much more limited than that of astrology in general,
which tends to imply that this limitation applies to astrology as well.
This does not have to be the case. It only takes the declaration that any
study of the celestial sphere for the purpose of divining the affairs and
future of man is, by literal definition, astrology. Corollary to this, of
course, is the declaration that horoscopy is a specific branch of astrology,
such that is the basis of our current usage. If we can do this, we can
develop ways of accessing the value inherent in all the material that is not
specifically horoscopic in orientation.

So the thrust of effort in these regards should be towards generating a
systematic approach to astrological material, whenever and wherever it was
generated, such that nothing is simply dismissed out of hand for the lack of
any way of seeing what to do with it. There is some excellent work being
carried out currently in several venues, each of which, as one might expect,
has its own orientation and its own purposes. Where work is not being done,
it is certainly not because the expertise to do so does not exist, it is
because there is currently no recognizable (much less accepted) meta-format
that exists to draw all these materials together. It is the development of
that meta-format which I would specifically suggest be immediately
addressed, and by those who are disposed by talent, training, and
inclination towards that sort of work.

Application:

It's pretty obvious that applied astrology is the principle, if not the
only, current strength extant. There are very many people who practice
astrology at one or another level of expertise, commitment, and ability
(knows stuff, wants to do stuff, and can do stuff). At the moment, we know
more about astrology than at any time in the history of mankind, because we
have a broader array of tools and skills at our disposal than ever before.
We have general availability to any given individual of every known (by
modern researchers) aspect of astrological knowledge and usage. The price
of the book and the will to apply what is there is all that is required, and
from the ubiquitous presence of the friendly neighborhood psychic book shop,
almost all of which have a more or less extensive astrology section, it
would seem that the price is available and the will (presumably) to make use
of it is also there.

We have an interesting array of different 'schools' of astrological
practice, representing most horoscopy about which anything much is known,
and including some astrology that is perhaps based or derived from horoscopy
but takes it into different areas of application. We have a discernible
philosophical spectrum concerning all aspects of astrology, both theoretical
and practical, and in this last century (the twentieth) there has been quite
well known and respected work to discover and show how astrology can (does?)
correlate with modern academically accredited disciplines of knowledge. We
also have a surprisingly extensive range of astrological application,
although that is not at all well known, even within the astrological
community.

What we don't have is any way of seeing how all of these various schools,
practices and applications relate to each other, such that they all form a
discernible general field of study, discipline of practice, etc. It would
seem trivial to at least establish the fundamentals for doing this: They
all deal with planets and the configurations they create in the celestial
sphere. They all operate within the same environment and apply to the same
terrestrial phenomena... the affairs of men. They share a common
fundamental terminology and rudimentary language.

The reality is, however, that each of these various manifestations of
astrology are basically parochial, such that they do not easily admit to
comparison with each other. The devotees and practitioners of each appear
to hold that they are the custodian of astrological 'truth', where the
implication is that others do, at best, to a lesser extent, if at all. The
saving grace here is that the devotees and practitioners are generally
amongst the minority, where the majority are users not fully committed, if
at all, and there are always some number of dilettantes or students that are
even less committed, of course. These students (dilettantes?) generate, in
their own practice and experience, some form of individual means of
correlating the various schools and applications they follow, and so we
cannot assume that a way of relating this panoply of astrology such that
creates a whole, does not exist, for indeed it obviously does. Individuals
do it all the time. We need to discover what is most commonly done and why.

Theoretical work:

A great deal of theoretical work has been done in astrology in the past
century, some of which has apparently fairly ready academic acceptance (the
work, not astrology itself). There are several stages in which that work
has developed, each more or less resting on that which went before. Some of
this work is represented in current astrological thought and practice, and
some is not. Most of this work is generally available in book form.

In addition, there has been a continuing effort to ground astrology in
science that has gone forward through the centuries, and it is doing so
today. Of my own knowledge, there are several projects that have been
undertaken by qualified and well regarded scientists for the specific
purpose of developing a foundation for astrology in one or another field of
science. One of which I am currently aware explicitly intends to develop a
solid and testable foundation for astrology in physics, and I am given to
understand has made good progress.. ie has generated some testable
theoretical material, which appears to be currently undergoing verification,
etc., etc.. There are others that approach astrology from a biological
point of view, as well as the better known psychological approaches.

So far as I know, none of these have reached the stage of legitimate full
scale test projects, but apparently not for the lack of will on the part of
the workers involved. The means to carry these projects out simply does not
now exist. The best that can be done is to amass case studies and submit
them to some sort of inspection and manipulation, usually involving
statistics in one form or another. The sort of projects that require a
large number of workers are apparently not presently possible, simply
because the personnel is not available to do the work. It's important to
note here, that the personnel does indeed exist. There are more than enough
astrologers out there to do a variety of such projects, but there is a
uniform reluctance, if not outright refusal, on the part of the astrological
community in general to be involved in such efforts.

The reasons for this are several. There is the perception on the part of
most astrologers that they are not able to do the work, whatever it is.
There is the perception on the part of most astrologers that such efforts
constitute a clear and present danger to their own form of practice. And
there is the general ideology that astrology is best left a mystery, lest it
be contaminated somehow by any sort of active investigation. There are
other reasons as well, but these are fairly well known and understood by
most of us.

In other areas of study, the area itself is the subject of respect and is
regarded as having intrinsic value in its own right. People come to study
and learn such subjects, and those who can and will, go on to contribute
their own work to the field, such that all who study are heirs to whatever
enrichment those contributions create. This is not the case with astrology,
and the reasons for this are themselves fairly well understood, I think:
most fall into the categories already stated above. I will address those
reasons shortly.

So there are possibilities for the advancement of astrological knowledge,
and those possibilities have been more or less continuously presented by one
or another astrologer, but there is virtually no one there to accept and
make use of those possibilities. Without such a corps of workers in
astrological research, virtually nothing is possible in the area of
theoretical development beyond the individual (small group) efforts in case
studies, etc.

Background:

In order to make any sense of this state of affairs, its useful to look at
what sort of situation can be said to be the case with current astrology.
If we can do that, maybe we can see at least where effort is required

The fundamental type of organization that is now manifest in astrology is
approximately that of the old craft guild halls, but without the benefits
thereof and with most of the abuses instead. Astrological knowledge is
doled out by those who have it, but quite deceitfully: the lore is
presented with the implied assumption that it will support the generation of
a given individual's competency as an astrologer, but with the full
knowledge that it is not the lore but the personal skills and talents that
are the operative function. If it were possible that the lore itself could
do the job, then cook-book astrology would be a real value; so far as we
have seen to date, it is not.

These skills and talents are indeed developed in astrology schools, as are
all such, through exercise and application under knowledgeable guidance, but
the results are all too often the generation of yet another devotee to a
particular school or practice, such that supports the continued existence of
the school itself rather than the career of the student. These schools are
created, not by demonstration of a haven for meritocracy, but by any
'astrologer' who can manage to market themselves well enough to have a book
they've written accepted for publication. This gives them the leverage to
do the lecture circuit and write articles in the various astrology
magazines, such that their names are advertised and their reputations duly
enhanced. They then cash in by contributing to the founding of a 'school of
astrology', which serves to further underwrite continued publication, etc.
etc.

Some of these people are indeed good astrologers, but so are many
practitioners who do not so market themselves. Some can indeed teach
astrology itself, rather than their own brand of astro-charisma, but so can
many other astrologers about whom we never hear. But neither of these are
the rule, unfortunately, and in any case, there is no way of demonstrating
peer reviewed competency upon which the student can rely as a matter of
course. I remember being told at one point by someone who would have seen
me become a prosperous astrologer: "You don't have to be good, you just have
to be 'out there'!!". I declined to embrace that point of view, but it's
rather obvious that it is a discernible rule of thumb in the astrology
profession.

If this is the present state of affairs, then we can ask what they could be
given the current state of astrology organization. A very brief look at the
past can provide an answer.

In the old guild halls, there were grades that the learner achieved, the
overall organization of which fell into three categories: apprentice,
journeyman, and master. The apprentice studied in a guild hall with a
master, and having completed that course of instruction, set out (journeyed)
through a succession of jobs or postings, where further learning of
different ways of doing things took place. Whoever could then demonstrate a
product of value in the marketplace could then develop a personal reputation
that led to the achievement of the status of master. These three stages are
still in use in the trades (it's socio-politically incorrect to contemplate
oneself as a master, and so that grade exists in the form of the business
owner who has developed the marketable reputation).

They are also mirrored in academia, which developed only a short while
later, although well within the era of the guilds: the Bachelor's degree is
the achievement of journeyman status, having completed the apprentice course
of undergraduate study. The Master's degree is the achievement of the
eponymous guild status, where the individual demonstrates the ability to do
original work. The Doctorate is a further step, specifically oriented to
academia. It is the ability to demonstrate mastery of the philosophy of the
subject of interest, such that it can be taught (doctor -docent.. common
root), although now it's more oriented towards the demonstration of that
philosophical mastery in the production of original work that is of accepted
value to the professional community. In general, the difference between the
Master's thesis and the Doctoral dissertation is that of knowing how, and
being able to actually do, original work. Beyond the Doctorate is the
Professorship, etc, etc.

Astrology has nothing of this sort, because there is no means of
coordinating the various schools such that they are of discernible value to
each other.. so that credits in one are honored in another, for instance.
This may be the case in specific situations but is not so generally. Absent
this, there seems no means of establishing any sort of whole field
(all-astrology) construct into which all this disparate practice and
philosophy can be assembled. So astrology can neither demonstrate
competency as a trade/craft, or as a profession. I will readily admit that
my judgments of the standards of an astrology professional have no intrinsic
basis in the practice of astrology; those standards come from elsewhere in
the care-giving community.

In short, much is possible, but very little is accomplishable. The
astrological community is unwilling to give general support to any serious
attempt to further our understanding of astrology, even though the ways and
means to do so not only exist but are regularly offered for use. Although
I've addressed the reasons for this situation a number of times, and in
different forums, I said I would do it here. And so I will.

Causes:

At present, astrology is largely the purview of those who want what they are
not willing to earn. They want the security of a means of knowing what is
not, for whatever reason, immediately obvious, but they are not willing to
risk that security by questioning the means they use. For them, astrology
is the ideal world view: it provides a means of gaining insight into the
nature of human reality, but it allows them to determine the meaning and
significance of that reality as they like, with no requirement to support
their claims in any way. The fact that most astrological usage today is a
manipulation of archetypes means that the interpretations thereof can be
anything the practitioner wishes, with the idea of a more concrete version
of the lore being unacceptably 'deterministic'.

Accordingly, we see a strong tendency of astrologers to identify themselves
more with some one or another point of view rather than with astrology
itself. We see them use such points of view that have been generally
identified and subscribed as sources of authority, very much in the same
manner as religious sectism where that authority provides 'revealed
knowledge' that does not admit query or doubt. These groups become havens
of support, where defense against such heretical activity can be vigorously
mounted, thus providing further isolating confirmation of what seems very
like parochial righteousness.

It is customary in our times to engage some institutional world view as a
virtual replacement for one's inner and subjective reality. Examples of
such institutions range from religion and philosophy to advocacy of some
social stance or cultural practice. In general, the default fallback mode
for each of these is militaristic and aggressive defensiveness. So it is
now with astrology, but astrology itself is not one of those institutions:
the various established points of view arrogate astrology as a foundation
for their own support, creating this militant parochialism inside the body
of astrological practice and thought.

Historically, we can see that one of the major cultural determinants of the
last several millennium is laid upon the various interpretations and
worships of a single (historical?) figure's acknowledgment and commitment to
a single deity. From Abraham and Yahweh have descended three of the most
militaristic world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and much of
the history of western civilization is writ by the antagonism between these
three. I suspect that if the subscription to astrology was that extensive,
we would not have a much less tragic history of astrology itself to record.
Never mind the fairly universal objection that astrology is meant only for
the benefit and nurture of mankind: the exact same claims were and are put
forth by these world religions.

We can suppose, of course, that what we're really addressing here is the
state of the human condition, the reality of human nature. And it's
difficult to argue the point. But what is most important to realize here is
that not all such human endeavor is oriented to and maintained in this
manner. While science and academia certainly have their versions of this
sort of thing, the acknowledged intention is that the endeavors themselves
be raised above that level. This is also generally true of the established
arts. Why isn't, or can it not be, true for astrology as well?

As long as the majority of astrologers conceive of astrology as a form of
religion, I see no potential for change in this state of affairs. It used
to be said that astrology was the queen of sciences; we all know why this is
no longer so, but we appear to now believe that astrology is not and can
never be any sort of science again. The reality here is that any field of
interest can be made a science (as well as an art, a philosophy, a practice
or craft, etc.), all that is required is that it be treated as such, that
the methodologies and philosophies of science be brought to bear on
astrology.

It is now commonly thought, apparently, that astrology cannot be both a
science and a religion, and maybe that's true, but I suggest that this
depends on how both of these treat with astrology. The default mode is to
position them as mutually exclusive antagonists, such that lays waste to any
grounds upon which they meet, but that is the result of refusal to put forth
any effort to understand or exert control over either of these pursuits.
The fact is, I submit, that the state of astrology today is that of the
'wasted grounds' where science and religion have fought numerous battles.
So it's not the fault of astrology itself, but how it has been used, that is
the root of the Problem of Astrology, I think.

Conclusion:

It would appear that there indeed exists much positive potential for
astrology, not just as a matter of it's own essential value, but of the
variety of possible and extant tools, skills, projects, ideas, etc., that
continue to arise and be offered to the astrological community.
Unfortunately, that community does not now have the means or inclination to
accept or make use of these offerings. I've described this situation
briefly as best I can in this post. The question now is: what can be done?